Order | Filed: September 29, 2026
| Entered: September 29, 2026
Blumstein-Torrella v. New York City Department of Education et al
Civil Rights: Jobs | New York Southern
Order Adopting Report and Recommendations
The Court Adopts the Report and Recommendation of MJ Figueredo. Plaintiff filed an application to challengetheconfidentialitydesignations regarding information derived from the proposed Article 78 proceeding, and Defendant filed its opposition.The MJ issued an Order on December 11, 2025. Defendants counselconsented, in writing, that Plaintiff could use any documents, and thefactscontained from discovery that were not marked as confidential intheArticle78.WhilePlaintiff filed her action, sheobjected to having to alter her message in themotiontocomplywiththe ProtectiveOrder, as well as the confusion around the sheer number of facts that have beenidentifiedas both confidential and non-confidential. Plaintiffthuscontendsthatthe Order erred infailingto address whether the Defendant met its burdento provewhythe material should be concealed from the publicunderthegood cause standard,whether or not a heightened First Amendment standard applies,as well asfailingto address Plaintiffs argument that Defendantscounselsaffirmative consentto the public filing of the documents operated as a waiver of confidentiality over those documents. Here, what Plaintiff trulyseeksto do is relitigatean issue previously brought before MJ Figueredobefore this Court. FRCP72(a) does notpermitsuchde novo review.Although the Order did not use Plaintiffs precise good cause formulationunder Rule26(c)or expresslyidentifya specific cognizable injury from disclosure,MJFigueredo found that Defendants had shown the documents were properly designated Confidential. In doing so, she relied on the nature of the documents: a string of e-mail communications between non-party employees of the New York City Department of Education discussing internal mechanisms related to Plaintiffs request for an accommodation, her leave records, and her efforts to return to active employment. The Order further noted that those communications appeared exempt from disclosure under New Yorks Freedom of Information Law as intra-agency communications. See N.Y. Pub. Off. Law § 87(2)(g).The FOIL exemption does not automatically resolve the Rule 26(c) inquiry, but it supports the Orders conclusion that the documents implicated a legitimateconfidentialityinterest. Under Rule 72(a)s deferential standard, that was sufficient. Therefore, MJ Figueredos findings adequately support the conclusion that Defendants had a legitimate confidentiality interest in the documents, and Plaintiff has not shown that the Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiffs remaining objections do notwarranta different result. First, although Plaintiff characterizes her First Amendment argument as involving her right to petition through an Article 78 proceeding, the Orderreasonably concludedthat the documents at issue were discovery materials subject to a Protective Order, not judicial documents carrying a presumption of public access.See e.g., Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (There is no presumption of access to documents that play no role in the performance of Article III functions, such as those passed between the parties in discovery.).See,e.g.,S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir.2001) (explaining that a document is not transformed into a judicial document merely because the court reviewed it todeterminewhether the protective order wasappropriate).Plaintifftherefore has not shown thatMJFigueredosrejection of her First Amendment theory was contrary to law. Second, while the Order did not separately analyze Plaintiffs waiver argument, it necessarily rejected that position by concluding that the documents were properly designated Confidential and directing the Clerk of Court tomaintainthe viewing restrictions at ECF No. 70.Plaintiffs filing of the documents on the public docket, particularly without a request to seal and before the Court resolved the confidentiality dispute, did not require Judge Figueredo to find that Defendants had waived confidentiality, or even address the instance of affirmative consent at all. MJ Figueredorejected theirargument with the benefit of supplemental briefing, review of the privilege logs,and in-camera review of theat-issue communications. While MJ Figueredoonly reviewedarepresentative sample of the communications, Plaintiffdoesnot claim that herreview method waserroror contrary to the law. "[G]eneralor conclusoryobjections, orobjectionswhich merely recite the samearguments presented to the magistrate judge,are reviewed for clear error."Charlot v. Ecolab, Inc., 97 F. Supp. 3d 40, 54 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)(internal quotation marksand citation omitted). "Furthermore, even on de novo review of specificobjections, the court will not considerarguments, case law,and/or evidentiary material which could have been, but were not, presented to the magistrate judgein the first instance."Charlot v. Ecolab, Inc., 97 F. Supp. 3d 40, 44 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) Applying theabove to the instant proceedings, nothing in the re... (truncated)